Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

User Review of Whisper Hearing Aids

This topic is closed.

616 replies22.9k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic

In reply to @d_Wooluf

“brick & mortar” HAP pricing is $139/mo. This is primarily on the west coast. I guess this differential is to satisfy the HAP. As to software/hardware updates, my audiologist said that is to be determined. I choose to have faith within the confines of my agreement.

Edited

In reply to @d_Wooluf

@d_Wooluf said:

Software upgrades are only provided up until the next hardware version is released.

Just to be clear: there are no hardware updates included in the subscription, except for those who joined the “Brain Trust” (which I believe is closed).

Do other hearing aid manufacturers continue to update the firmware of a hearing aid once they’ve released a successor? I think Oticon stopped updating the OPN 1 after the More was released (correct me if I’m wrong, @Volusiano).

In reply to @richardsondc

The problem with this is latency; for the processing to take place away from the hearing aid itself, the hearing aid has to be able communicate really quickly with the external device, or else an audio delay or lag will be perceived.

Apparently the folks at Whisper engineered a special low-latency protocol for communication between the hearing aids and the “Brain.” Bluetooth doesn’t cut it.

Edited

@happymach: When you say those things, are you not “moving the goalposts” and drastically changing your evaluation criteria, on which you based your decision to opt for Whisper, in the first place?

Adding the streaming and connectivity features you want is, IMO radically changing the nature of the beast, and is probably in a whole other technological ballpark than the current product’s core technology. (Rechargeability and miniaturization, not so much …)

As my Grandma SpudGunner would say: “The grass is always greener on the other side of the bush.”

@d_Wooluf said:

One thing I noticed when I looked at the site today: Software upgrades are only provided up until the next hardware version is released.

In the Whisper webinar I attended last year, the premise was that you’d get all your hearing care for a fixed price per month, and every customer would have the best hearing aid that Whisper could provide. So my recollection is that all Whisper customers would get new hardware when it came out. Yeah, things can and do change. But given the confusion about price (website says $69/month, customers are being told differently), the website may be less than authoritative in places. I’m hoping for the original premise.

@happymach said:

Apparently the folks at Whisper engineered a special low-latency protocol for communication between the hearing aids and the “Brain.” Bluetooth doesn’t cut it.

Yep, and even a mobile phone supporting their special protocol and running a Brain app couldn’t substitute for the dedicated Brain hardware. The mobile phone operating systems aren’t real-time OS’s, meaning that they can’t guarantee the Brain app would do its work in a timely enough fashion.

In reply to @happymach

@happymach said:

Do other hearing aid manufacturers continue to update the firmware of a hearing aid once they’ve released a successor? I think Oticon stopped updating the OPN 1 after the More was released

Oticon stopped updating the OPN1 when the ‘S’ was released. My impression is that Whisper’s updates are far more significant than other manufacturers’. And it’s a big part of their marketing. I can understand them not supporting legacy hardware, but it’s something to consider when deciding whether to get on board.

@happymach said:

The big advantage of Whisper IMHO is the fact that users can update it themselves.

Oh? I was under the assumption that Whisper users go to their to get the update done, or have their HCP do the firmware update remotely. So this is new to me.

How is it done? Do you connect the brain to an app on a smart phone or something? Or via some kind of PC interface like the USB port?

In reply to @Volusiano

I don’t remember exactly, but I believe one loaded a special web page, connected the Brain to a USB port on a computer via its charging cable, and then clicked on a button on the web page. The firmware in both the Brain and the hearing aids was then updated.

This was for the last firmware update (1.4).

I have Telecare option on my Signia aids. I think other aids have this too. I wonder if any new software updates can be imported that way? I would presume so. Other adjustments can be made through telecare as well. I haven’t used it–my provider is 8 minutes away. And the aids are relatively new. I’m not at sure if firmware updates are a different beast.

I must say that the gist of this thread leaves me skeptical–well, less certain–about the viability of Whisper aids, in terms of a business. The aids seem to answer best to issues that I don’t have. sound quality seems to be incrementally better at best, except for the rave review of their performance in noisy environments.
I’m glad others have gone first! Thanks for all the reports.

Edited

In reply to @happymach

@happymach said:

The big advantage of Whisper IMHO is the fact that users can update it themselves.

Thanks for confirming that one can do a firmware update via USB with a computer by oneself. But I don’t think that’s really the big Whisper advantage anyway.

People with easy access to their but don’t care to mess with connecting the Whisper brain to a PC can just have their HCP do it just the same. It’s not any different than with users of other brands. And firmware updates are not really such a frequent hardship that happens that often that you would dread having to visit your HCP too frequently for updates anyway.

I think perhaps the real advantage that you’re trying to refer to, as advertised heavily by Whisper, is the ability for the Whisper brain to receive major significant technology updates that would normally require waiting a few years to build a new hardware platform to implement it on, like how other mfgs would normally have had to do. For example, the OpenSound Optimizer requires Oticon to move from the Velox platform to the Velox S platform, then the More requires Oticon to move next to the Polaris platform. In each case, you’d have to wait a few years for a newer capable platform, then you must also buy new HAs. What Whisper is touting is that if these kinds of major technology improvements were to happen with Whisper, they can implement them on the same Whisper brain platform right away without having to wait for a new hardware platform to be developed in a few years.

OK, that’s fine and dandy, but it only becomes a big advantage if Whisper can really come up with new major significant technology updates fast enough several times a year to make a difference. But I think Whisper probably has been out for about a year now maybe already??? (actual forum posters started reporting trials back in November of last year), but I haven’t seen any new major significant technology update announcement from Whisper yet, aside from that AI engine that they’ve always had from day one. Even the basic streaming technology that all other HA mfgs already have still seems to be in the wind for Whisper. How about technology? Just about everybody else have had it for years already but Whisper.

So that big advantage is not so big after all if you don’t have new major contents to load it up frequently enough to really utilize the advantage in the first place. Yet users have had to carry around the brain with them this whole year that contains the same AI technology that hasn’t really changed for a whole year.

Don’t get me wrong. The idea of an easily updateable brain is very novel and sexy. But the promised execution has proven to be lacking so far. The big advantage of an easily updateable brain becomes a disadvantage of a brick one has to carry around for the same technology that has been around since last year. Where are the promised significant updates many times a year for the brain?

The reality of it is that major significant technology improvements don’t come around that often, at least not many times a year. Oticon came out with the OPN is the summer of 2016, then the OPN S 3 years later in March 2019, then the More in January 2021. So even for a big company like Oticon, their major technology improvements only come out every few years or so. Then how can a tiny little company like Whisper come out with equivalent major technology improvements several times a year, fast enough to take big advantage of an easily updateable brain?

Edited
@Volusiano said:

So that big advantage is not so big after all if you don’t have new major contents to load it up frequently enough to really utilize the advantage in the first place. … The big advantage of an easily updateable brain becomes a disadvantage of a brick one has to carry around for the same technology that has been around since last year. Where are the promised significant updates many times a year for the brain?

@Volusiano : Exactly, MrV … Exactly! (That’s telling them, by Jove!!)

It appears to me that with traditional , major technological improvements require hardware engineers to develop (design) the improvement for the hardware and software engineers to develop (design) the improvement for software. Whereas, with Whisper, a technological improvement would only require software engineers to develop (design) the improvement for the software only. Hardware and software engineers with the ability to perform these technology enhancements are not a dime a dozen and available on any street corner. So, could it be that Whisper has essentially cut in half the effort required to make a technological improvement available and also improved the timeline?

In reply to @Volusiano

I misspoke when I wrote “The big advantage of Whisper …”

I meant to write, “A significant advantage of Whisper is its user-updateable firmware for me.” Obviously, no one will choose a hearing aid primarily because its firmware can be updated by the user! I for one really appreciate not having to spend time driving to my merely for firmware updates, but many people who wear hearing aids probably prefer to have the HCP do everything.

I think Whisper promised quarterly updates, and they have more or less delivered on that front. They meant software, by the way, not hardware. And the whole premise of the platform is that it can be more easily reconfigured/upgraded via software than others.

The disadvantages of the Whisper platform have already been amply discussed here, @Volusiano – we’re well aware of them, except for which doesn’t make any difference to me.

Again, almost all users seem to agree that the Whisper platform offers best-in-class hearing in noise. That’s why I chose them (and also because they were significantly less expensive than Oticon More 1s). But I/we have to put up with the fact that Whisper lacks many important features that are standard on other platforms.

Edited

In reply to @BeachBum

@BeachBum said:

So, could it be that Whisper has essentially cut in half the effort required to make a technological improvement available and also improved the timeline?

Not really. The industry is all about miniaturization in the first place. It’s entirely a different thing to come up with a newer and more complicated hardware platform that is small enough to fit a new technology into a tiny chip that goes into a tiny hearing aid ear piece. It’s so much easier to fit this same new technology into a (relatively) humongous brain that has plenty of room for more memories and more logic gates in terms of transistors that is hundreds of times larger than the custom chip in the hearing aid piece. So basically it’s a trade-off between miniaturization and large scale size implementation. Miniaturization is highly customized. Large scale size implementation has plenty of real estate for expansion, but at the expense of taking up a much bigger size in terms of a separate device, which requires a bigger/separate rechargeable battery, not to mention a communication system to transfer data back and forth between the ear piece and the brain with minimal latency.

So it’s all about trade-off. Now, the trade-off of having a separate but bulky (brick of a) brain MAY be worth while IF AND ONLY IF the concept of being able to accept and configure and implement new major technology updates into the brain happens frequently enough. At least more frequently than the ability to come up with a new customized platform every 2 or 3 years, meaning the 2-3 year cycle would get trumped if the new major technology updates happen frequently enough, at least once a year or preferably many times a year. Otherwise, if you can only come up with a new major technology upgrade every few years and your brain only receives that new major technology update every few years, then how is having a brain anymore advantageous than being able to design a newly customized platform to support those 2-3 year major technology updates? The Whisper users would end up carrying the brain for 2-3 years before a major technology update can be realized, while other HA mfgs’ users enjoy the miniaturization of the small ear piece just the same all the while.

The bottom line is whether Whisper can really realize major technology updates that frequently or not? My contention is NO, it cannot. There’s a lot of R&D involved to research and develop new major technology updates, and it takes time to come up with it, and usually it takes at least a few years. By the time a new major technology update is available, the traditional HA mfg should have no problem at all to be able to come up with a new hardware platform (that fits on a tiny HA ear piece) to support it anyway. So the premise of being able to deliver new major technology updates so quickly (as in a few times a year) like Whisper is saying, which would justify having an easily updateable brain, is a false premise in the first place in my opinion.

I’ve said this before, but in this context, it may be worthwhile to say it again. What Whisper is doing with the easily updateable brain is nothing ground-breaking. The big 6 HA mfgs can EASILY take the same approach if they deem it worthwhile. BUT they never deem it worthwhile, because they can’t come up with new major technology updates that quickly (several times a year) anyway. The best they can do is new stuff every few years. And this span of time gives them enough leeway to develop a new custom miniaturized platform to support it anyway, so the pace of the new platform development is synergistic with the pace of their new major technology development to begin with.

If anything, since Whisper is such a tiny company compared to the big 6, they most likely don’t have the money and resources to develop a newly customized hardware platform every few years, so their only alternative is to resort to a big bulky brain that can afford them the extra hardware real estate to expand into the future (at the expense of miniaturization), so that’s why they’re taking that approach while the big 6 don’t have to or even want to take that approach in the first place. Whisper tries to put a positive spin onto it as gaining the ability to implement major technology updates very quickly and easily. But what they neglect to admit is that they wouldn’t have the resources as a startup company to come up with new major technology updates that frequently in the first place.

I’m OK with hearing that Whisper has a very effective to deal with speech in noise that makes it worth the while to go with. But every time I hear more harping about Whisper’s touted ability to deliver new major technology updates to their brain as a key differentiation and that’s why they took the brain approach, I just really think that it’s just a false positive spin on a rather deal-breaker-for-some disadvantage that Whisper privately wish they didn’t have in the first place. I’d bet if Whisper has the money and resources to be able to develop and implement a new miniaturized hardware platform every few years like the big 6 do, they’d rather go with that approach instead, rather than having to go with the brain and then trying to put a positive spin on it for justification.

Edited

In reply to @happymach

@happymach said:

But I/we have to put up with the fact that Whisper lacks many important features that are standard on other platforms.

@happymach: It’s your prerogative, of course, if you choose to do so, but the market, in general, and potential buyers on the margin, like me, don’t have to do any such thing.

I think both @Volusiano and I agree: we think it was ill-conceived of Whisper to presume that they could take a half-finished project prototype, present it as an A-team offering, and tout it as such in their advertising, when it seems to us, from the sidelines, to be - at best - an innovation at the beta-test stage that’s being prematurely taken to market (clad in the equally-half-baked marketing rationalizations so deftly gutted and filleted here by @Volusiano).

But, in the final analysis, they’re your :money_with_wings::money_with_wings: and your :hear_with_hearing_aid:t2::hear_with_hearing_aid:t2:.

Related discussions